The scandal of CSI, the little-known loophole used to deny EU citizens permanent residency

By now many EU citizens living in Britain feel disheartened and disappointed at Parliament’s failure to secure their rights post-Brexit. A particularly concerning issue that emerged is the years-long misinformation surrounding the Comprehensive Sickness Insurance (CSI). Aleksandra Herbeć writesthat failure of the UK government to communicate information about the CSI, also through universities, could mean that thousands of EU citizens in the UK face losing their eligibility for Permanent Residency (PR), and even the possibility of deportation. The media, too, have failed to cover the issue of CSI properly or to address some of its dubious aspects.

CSI – the legal loophole you have never heard of

In the past few days, the misleading term ‘Comprehensive Sickness Insurance’ (CSI) has suddenly become a hot topic among EU citizens in the UK. For many of them, as well as their British relatives and friends, this was the first time they have ever heard about CSI. The chilling discovery was that for many years now the CSI has been a requirement for all EU citizens studying in the UK or residing here as self-sufficient persons. Without it, they cannot exercise their treaty rights and acquire permanent residency, which would normally be automatically granted after spending a continuous period of five years in the UK. At the moment, without a valid CSI the years spent in the UK do not count towards PR. Ominously, the current rules – some of which were introduced as recently as February 2017 – seem to give the Home Office the power to deport EU nationals who are not exercising treaty rights.few

The CSI is a concern for thousands of EU nationals who, during their period of residence in the UK that would otherwise count towards PR, were at any time either a student, or a self-sufficient person (e.g. carers, stay-at-home spouses, or part-time workers not earning enough to cross a threshold set by the government). This would include cases in which an EU national worked full-time for 4 years and then enrolled at a UK university without having a CSI, thus unwittingly interrupting the 5-year residency rule.

Permanent Residency card issued by the Home Office, image by @RochDW, licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0

A failure of communication

It is hard to understand why the fact that the CSI is a central requirement for many EU citizens in the UK has surfaced only now. It is indicative of a systematic failure of public communication that so many have learned about it only through confusing posts on social media. Many of the posts spoke of fears of deportation, of not being let back into the UK after holidays abroad, or being separated from British children or spouses at the border once Article 50 is triggered.

The official governmental channels of communication have done their best to be opaque on the topic of CSI. Also, while the House of Lords and many institutions and individuals, including British citizens living in the EU, have been calling for EU citizens’ rights to reside in the UK to be secured, it is not clear if this would involve any amendments to the CSI requirement. At least up until the time of writing (13 March 2017), the UK government website used the following description for a ‘qualified person’ who could apply for a registration certificate, and ultimately also for PR:

Unfortunately, this information is rather incomplete, and EU nationals acting on it could unknowingly lose their right to acquire PR, and face uncertainty over their legal status.This might have been avoided if only the UK Government website was upfront about who might classify as a ‘qualified person’ (Fig 2):

Figure 2: Suggested amendments for improving the gov.uk website on residency in the UK for EU/EEA nationals

Information on CSI is curiously sparse on the gov.uk website. CSI is mentioned briefly in the guidance notes and the PR application, documents that very few would have checked before actually beginning their application process. This is particularly unlikely as the gov.uk website seems to discourage EU nationals from applying for residency certificates:

Fig. 3: Information on the gov.uk website suggesting EU nationals do not need to apply for residency certificates

More broadly, the UK government has been passing laws on CSI without communicating them widely, not even through the organisations directly in contact with EU citizens, such as universities. EU nationals arriving to the UK have not been provided with clear information on the requirement to obtain health insurance in order to secure their rights.

Not so ‘comprehensive’ after all

Once an EU citizen somehow finds out about CSI, they face another challenge – there does not seem to be a reliable source of information on what private insurance coverage would qualify as CSI in the eyes of the Home Office. Some private insurers advertise CSIs, but state they are not liable if their insurance ends up not meeting requirements. An insurance broker contacted by the author claimed that the Home Office has not issued guidelines on CSI and that they go by what is reported in the media and by their own experience with PR applications.

The mere fact of having health insurance from another EU country does not necessarily mean an EU citizen has CSI. They should have had a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) issued by another EU member state for every period in which they were a student or self-sufficient person in the UK. However, by being a resident in the UK, some EU citizens may have lost access to healthcare in their country of origin. In a further administrative paradox, relying on an EHIC issued by another EU country for the PR application will only be accepted if one confirms their intent not to live in the UK permanently (see Fig 3).

Fig 4: Screenshot from the PR application and a note on CSI requirement.

It is unclear as to how the CSI would relieve the potential burden an EU citizen might pose to the NHS. The PR application only requires one to have a CSI, not to have made use of it. Indeed, people with CSIs can still access GPs and all treatments on the NHS. EU citizens are in many circumstances required or strongly encouraged to register with a GP (including when enrolling at a university). Moreover, private insurers do not cover all treatments (even under the ‘comprehensive’ sickness insurance), often delegating the treatment of chronic conditions to NHS.

Furthermore, CSI is discriminatory. Contrary to the Immigration Health Surcharge paid by international students in the UK, there is no standardised rate for private CSI for EU nationals. The CSI premiums depend on one’s age, sex, health, and prior conditions, among others. This disadvantages EU nationals who are women, older, have comorbidities or prior health conditions. Even the cheaper options for healthy young adults (c. 30-40£/month) could be difficult to afford.

Obtaining CSI seems to be a purely administrative, box-ticking task for the PR form, without much real-life relevance or benefit to EU citizens, or to the NHS. In its current form, the CSI confers an unnecessary financial burden and a discriminatory barrier to residency.

How about the universities?

It seems that the UK universities were not prepared to offer their EU students (some of whom are their former employees) comprehensive information about CSI. In certain cases, they offered false reassurance that EU students do not require health insurance. For example, still in February 2017, the UCL website dedicated to health advice contained the following statement: “If you are an EU/EEA student, […] you may wish to consider private health insurance as well as there can be long waiting times for some NHS services. […]. However, medical insurance is not compulsory and is your decision whether you wish to purchase it or not.” A few days before the publication of this article, a rather unhelpful statement was added: “For EU/EEA students, the information provided above concerning medical insurance is relevant for accessing healthcare during your time as an enrolled student at UCL. More information about comprehensive sickness insurance can be found on the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) website.”

This further testifies to the lack of clear guidelines and bureaucratic chaos surrounding CSI, with few institutions equipped to offer specific guidance even today.

The author of this article has yet to meet an EU student who knew about the CSI before the issue surfaced in the media in the last weeks. Many still do not know about it. Some websites suggest that some university application forms for EU/EEA nationals ask whether the student holds CSI. However, given the legal implications of not having CSI, it does not seem sufficient to be informing students about it via a box-ticking exercise or a brief mention on application forms. Crucially, the information about CSI should always be contextualised and accompanied by information clarifying that (i) access to the NHS does not count, and (ii) that CSI is required to exercise treaty rights and accumulate residency rights.

What should have been done about CSI

The CSI regulations have not been implemented effectively, but this could have been avoided. The legality, practicality, and logistics of CSI should have been scrutinised before implementing the rules, and if they were still deemed to be appropriate, then:

The UK government should have been more transparent and vocal about the rules for EU citizens, and particularly CSI.

There should have been procedures in place to ensure that EU citizens planning to come to the UK, and those already residing here, but also British citizens (who might be partners, in-laws, employers, tutors to EU nationals), are appropriately informed.

Information about the CSI requirement should have been disseminated in a useful and non-threatening manner through many channels: at passport controls, via GPs, schools, religious associations, banks, TV and radio stations, unions, as well as universities (emails to EU students and their supervisors/tutors, at orientation days, freshers’ weeks, special inductions). Such an information campaign should have been initiated ahead of the proposed changes to legislation and should have continued ever since.

A simple government website should have been set up with comprehensive information on CSI, listing (a) clear rules as to what cover would qualify for a private CSI, and (b) a list of approved providers. This could also ensure that EU nationals do not fall victim to ‘sham’ offers, or purchase wrong policies.

Universities should have been provided with guidelines on CSI, and so that they could inform EU applicants about the rules, and the implications, e.g. that they may be losing their residency rights if they start degrees without being covered by CSI.

The EU citizens should be provided with means to acquire CSI in time, including ‘buffer periods’ to accommodate a change in circumstances.

EU citizens should be able to make direct contributions to the NHS fund, if they wish to, rather than private insurers, with the rates standardised.

Challenging the CSI requirement

The current regulations and procedures surrounding the CSI requirement put EU citizens in the UK at a disadvantage when they apply for residency. Not surprisingly, CSI has been considered unlawful by some lawyers, and has been challenged in UK courts already, but with no success. Several petitions and MPs have also called for abolishing the rule. EU Rights Clinic tries to put a new case together and calls for stories on PR being denied due to lack of CSI. The time is also high for UK universities to join their plea to protect the rights of their current and former students.

Abolishing the CSI requirements altogether, and especially for PR applications, seems the only reasonable course of action. However, abolishing the CSI itself will not be meaningful without further securing EU nationals’ rights in the UK post-Brexit.

Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank Mateusz Zatoński, PhD candidate at LSHTM, for his invaluable support, suggestions, and assistance with editing this blog.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the LSE Brexit blog, nor the LSE.

Aleksandra Herbeć, MA (Hons), MSc is a PhD candidate in the Department of Behavioural Science and Health at UCL. She works in the field of tobacco control, and her current research focuses on the development and evaluation of digital behaviour change interventions and capacity building in the treatment of tobacco dependency. She tweets @AHerbec.

Related

101 Comments

The information on CSIs is available and it is the responsibility of any individuals who may be affected by the law to familiarise themselves with it, it is not the Governments, universities or any other institution(s) to drip feed it to those concerned.
CSI is not unlawful as has been shown by the test cases that the courts have dismissed.
There is nothing “demeaning” or “arbitrary” about its enforcement.

Where is the information on which policies count as “CSI” available?
Where is the information on what a policy would need to cover in order to count as “CSI” available?
If the policy is not arbitrary, why are PR applicants being forced to comply (with this undefined “rule”) but people here “unlawfully” (some nearly all their lives) are not being deported and are being allowed in and out of the UK?

I’d be interested to know what your interest is this this matter. I am the British husband of a German citizen who has lived here 30 years. What’s your story?

It is all concerned individuals responsibility to be fully aware of the immigration law requirements and I speak as a person who lived in 3 different countries, EU and non-EU. Nobody should expect to come across editorials in newspapers detailing the requirements for obtaining permanent residence. Anybody having any doubts about what is required in terms of their lawful residence should seek advice from qualified immigration advisor/lawyer. As an example, I can testify, that many migrants from Eastern Europe are unable to obtain permanent residence today because they didn’t register under Workers Registration Scheme put in place by Home Office in 2004 and ended in 2011. The requirements were publicised in British and migrant media outlets, yet many believed that the fact of holding EU passport was sufficient for legal employment which was untrue.

It is also very convenient to blame the UK Government and Home Office in particular for the CSI rule but forgeting at the same time that this piece of legislation came from the EU, not the UK! On top of that, why EU citizens residing in the UK expect British prime minister to guarantee their residence rights (and by the way, I also believe they should be guaranteed) but no one bothers to notice that no EU official or as a matter of fact, no head of other European state has so far guaranteed those rights to British citizens who migrated to other EU states. If you want to criticise, do it fairly. Student journalism!

Well, Joe, I did exactly that when I arrived in the UK in ’94. Coming from Germany I expected to buy health insurance to be able to access the NHS, asked the International Student Office at my university, the then DSS, the HO and the NHS itself. Was told no need for CSI as I am an EU citizen and therefore am entitled to access the NHS.

As someone who also has lived in three countries, EU and non-EU, I tell you what I do expect: to be able to access clear information containing all requirements to fulfill and how they should be fulfilled (no problem in US or Germany). I expect to be able to phone the respective immigration offices and get clear and consistent advice (no problem in US or Germany). I expect an immigration lawyer to have even better access to such information and advice (no problem in US or Germany).

As for your claim re UK immigrants in EU, maybe you should read a little more widely as many European countries are working hard to secure their rights. Just this month, I believe, the Portuguese government tabled a motion to do just that. In Germany, options for fast tracking citizenship applications from UK migrants are being looked at. I also read about such reports from other EU countries, of concrete steps being undertaken in this direction (in addition to actually telling the British citizens in their countries that they are welcome).

The most important thing you need to know though is that all EU member states are sovereign and decide their own, individual, immigration policies for non-EU immigrants. Or have you ever seen or heard of the EU telling the UK how many Indian or American immigrants it can or cannot accept?

After Brexit, the UK will no longer be an EU state, therefore it is up to the UK to negotiate 27 bilateral agreements between itself and each and every one of the 27 member states to secure the rights of their respective citizens. No one can speak for all of the other countries here, not even the EU. But the UK, being the one initiating the split from the EU, and one would expect knowing its own mind, can give such a reassurance to the EU citizens that live here, because it already gets to decide that, all by its own, if the political will is there.

Mike Hall
March 22, 2017 at 4:52 am

No you are wrong, re: bilaterial agreements. The matter can be included under the Article 50 agreement and after acceptance by the Council and the Parliament can be put into EU law by using the relevant directives.

Don’t forget that UK wants to leave EU, not other members of states. Cameron negotiated a good deal with EU , but England decided to leave anyway. Explain why protecting British people should be in interest of EU or other member of states, because I do not quite get that

Mike Hall
March 22, 2017 at 4:56 am

Hahaha. David Cameron might contact you to ask if he can use your line “Cameron negotiated a good deal with EU” in the book about his time in No. 10 which he is now writing, because you are the only known person that has described it as a good deal. (Donald Tusk might also want to use the quote when he writes his book when he steps down soon – no one else agrees it was a good deal)

I think the clear statement of the requirement that you are looking for is on the EC website. Failing that, I’d approach the ABI who will point you in the direction of a member firm or firms specialising in that sort of insurance.

It mystifies me that a cohort lands in the UK from countries that have compulsory health insurance systems and yet somehow doesn’t pause to ask who pays in the UK.

Having lived most of the past 20 years in other EU member states, I always ask myself where I am insured. It’s a basic.

In reality, this is about uninsured individuals who have passed on their risk to the taxpayer (whether British or from another EU member state).

The solution is probably some sort of ‘amnesty’ in exchange for a retrospective payment of unpaid premiums.

I think the whole discussion here is going in the wrong direction and i think people who came freely to the UK should speak for themselves. When i came to England in 2010 for educational purposes, UK was in EU and it did not look like this is going to change. I was not planning to stay in the UK pernamently,so why do you think I should check requirements for permanent residence card ? I was here legally working /studying travelling between countiers. The only reason why i am interested in pernament residence card now is the fact that UK is planning to leave EU and i want to secure my place while i am doing my PhD, but it appears that i am not eligible, i have no future plans with England and the feeling that you are not longer welcomed here makes me to want leave even more.

Everyone should cover their bases in life, its just common sense. Saying that when you came to England “UK was in EU and it did not look like this is going to change” is like a person with a mortgage bemoaning tht when he bought the house it did not look like prices were going to fall / or interest rates were going to rise (and then they did).

Until any EU state surrenders its sovereignty to the EU there is always the possiblity that they might leave the EU.

But anyway you need not worry, your rights are protected under the Vienna Convention on Treaties which ensures that if you invest or move to another country under the terms of a treaty (here the Treaty of Rome – the EU treaty) you must not suffer an injustice if things suddenly change. Your case is exactly why that Convention was signed by many countries.

You should not jump to the conclusion that you are not welcome or that anyone is saying that. Apart from a few narrow minded people and a few bigots the vast majority of British people welcome EU immigrants, as I do, they bring a lot to our country. The EU referendum Leave vote was about control and management not about anti-people-who-are-not-British. But if you have not picked up that sense of inclusion which Britain offers to fellow EU immigrants yet having been in Britain since 2010 then either you are surrounded by the wrong people or you have misunderstood the society around you. I am baffled by that.

I’m happy to discuss this. I’m shocked by this. Married to a British soldier and as part of his service I stayed home for a few months after university without CSI. Have been here since 2004. Email me on gelorobinson@gmail.com

I am a french citizen who has been living and working in the uk over 7 years. I have just been denied my permanent residency because of the CSI which I had never heard of and was never mentioned in my application. There is a 6 months unemployment gap in my 7 years, as I was a student, therefore no NHS contribution. But since I was already in the uk for more than 3 years and working, never thought I needed to have a cover to use the NHS. This breaks my entire 7 years of living and working in the uk. Contact me if you want to chat

Hi, We re having the same problem in Ireland, where we’re exclusively being asked for Private Med Insurance. Help!!!!! we’ve nobody to contact!!! Help. They deporting people here for the same reasons, but nobody is talking about it

I think the whole discussion here is going in the wrong direction and i think people who came freely to the UK should speak for themselves. When i came to England in 2010 for educational purposes, UK was in EU and it did not look like this is going to change. I was not planning to stay in the UK pernamently,so why do you think I should check requirements for permanent residence card ? I was here legally working /studying travelling between countiers. The only reason why i am interested in pernament residence card now is the fact that UK is planning to leave EU and i want to secure my place while i am doing my PhD, but it appears that i am not eligible, i have no future plans with England and the feeling that you are not longer welcomed here makes me to want leave even more.

The information regarding requirements for entry under freedom of movement (including CSI) is available on the EU Parliament Information website in all the EU languages so there is no excuse for not knowing about it or blaming the UK.

“Under the Free Movement Directive, EU citizens who settle in another EU country but do not work there may be required to have sufficient resources and sickness insurance. The United Kingdom, however, does not consider entitlement to treatment by the UK public healthcare scheme (NHS) as sufficient. This breaches EU law.”

Thank you for your article. I am yet another European citizen married to a British one and at the moment I am a stay at home mum of two young children. I am the only “foreigner” in my family and I do not feel that leaving the UK could ever be an option for us. However, it appears that according to the Home Office I should be “making preparations to leave” due to not for filling the CSI requirement.

The link to healthcare arrangement for non-EU spouse visas.https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-application/how-much-pay
It’s worth mentioning that there is a process in place for non-europeans that allows them to contribute towards an NHS fund if they apply for long-term visa.
The price difference between a private health insurance scheme and the amount listed above is significant and, as you mention in the article, EU nationals have no option to pay towards an NHS fund.

Last but not least, when I was first told about the CSI requirement by the Home Office in July 2017, there was NO mention of it on their website. It was added much later.
PR became a preconditioned for naturalisation of European citizens only on February 2016.

Under ECHR law you have the right to stay here the clauses relating to he right to a family life and all EU countries are obliged to be a signatory to this body of human rights law – as the UK is a member, for after all we wrote most of it.

Yolanda W.
March 23, 2017 at 12:20 pm

Mr Hall, the Home Office classifies european spouses of British citizens that work part-time or look after young children as “self-sufficient” in the PR process. Therefore, they need to produce evidence of CSI otherwise their permanent residency application gets rejected. Without PR one can no longer apply for naturalisation on the grounds of marriage. It’s a chicken and egg situation. I have spoken to Home Office advisors and there is nothing that can be done. That’s why I’m calling myself the only foreigner in my family.

Mike Hall
March 23, 2017 at 10:43 pm

Yolanda, it is not about needing naturalisation, only about a right to remain, thats all you need. You are covered under the ECHR, you can not be deported or asked to leave. See an immigration lawyer if you need confirmation. Besides as I write elsewhere in this thread the Vienna Convention is another fall back apart from which it seems at an early stage of the Brexit negotiations your dilemma will be solved.

By stepping this up to naturalisation, one gets the impression you are making this more onerous than it needs be.

Yolanda W.
March 24, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Thanks for taking the time to write back and reassure me. I am not scared that someone will knock on my door and take me to a deportation centre.The point I’m trying to make is that at the moment the only official certification for the “right to stay” for an EU citizen is the PR card. The Home Office is clear that spouses of British citizens that do not work are considered self-sufficient individuals. As such I and people like myself, do not qualify for PR card because of CSI (or rather lack of it).
If that remains the case, and PR is used as the official way of registering european citizens which is a necessity at this stage, then I hope you appreciate the uncertainty. Post Brexit, we do not know what the requirements will be for employment, health, travel, Will I be able to apply for jobs when my children are a bit older? Will I be able to go to an NHS hospital? Will I be able to retrain? Do I need private health insurance now? Nobody knows.
Applying for naturalisation for me is not Brexit related. I was going to do it anyway for practical reasons, because my family is here, because I do not want to trek down to the Greek embassy to renew a passport when I’m 80, because I know that this is where my future is. Now I cannot do it.

Mike Hall
March 27, 2017 at 10:30 am

OK, so the issue for you is that you want your status, as a new British citizen confirmed and settled. The CSI issue comes as a shock as, due to poor information by the Home Office, you like many others did not realise that this requirement existed. So at the moment you can not move to being a British citizen and this means you must live with an unsecured long term outlook.

But there are these factors. The ECHR ensures you can not be forced to leave the UK. If you stay, you as an EU “jobseeker” have the right to work in the UK and will be given an NI number. By the way, if you do not have that, go to your local Job Centre and apply for one before Wed this week because the Government has notified (to much press coverage) that EU “arrivals” after Article 50 has been notified will not have the same future right to work as those who apply beforehand.

In addition it seems highly likely that an arrangement for EU citizens in the UK will be settled in the early part of the Brexit negotiations which will start in April. Plus as I keep mentioning there is the Vienna Covention which can guarantee your existing EU rights after Brexit.

All this means you have some security. It is almost impossible that in the next five years you can be removed from the UK. That means you now have a five year span in which to pay the absub CSI to qualify for PR. All you have to do is take out private health insurance at the lowest monthly repayment, (I think they start at £35 per month). Its no fun to pay this but we all make big admin mistakes in our lives by not sorting out our tax or citizenship earlier and then get hit by rules later. I lost several thousand pounds in another European country where I had emigrated because I did not update my address to the tax authorities when i moved and was doubled taxed for local tax. They took the money direct from my account, which would be illegal in those circumstances within the UK, so it came as a shock to me. Yet looking back i discovered all the warnings about this were available on official websites and discussed on expat blogs. I had to take the hit. It was hard, but it was my fault. How could I be so careless about my official status in another country, just assuming EU law will guarantee everything? Madness. My point here is to say we take the hit when we are not on top of our own paperwork.

Another aspect of this is that if the Home Office does not recognise your obvious status having been in the UK with a family for many years (they do have discretion to make some exceptions for permanent habital resident persons – and being a mother at home brining up children is a gold plated reason for them to make an exception to the normal rules, its as good as working in a job full time), then you can for low cost apply for what is known as judicial review. This is a legal challenge to a decision by bureacracy by an independent adjudicator (a kind of judge) which can over turn their decision if -and this is the important point- it seems you suffered un-fairness. It does not matter if you did not do things correctly, the judgement is based on whether a reasonable person would have possibly ever known about the CSI rule and as you were fully occupied (as a mother) in this country you were here for good reasons, then the adjudicator might think the rules were un-fair in your case. This “judicial review” last chance simple does not exist in many other European countries and i missed it very much in my tax case i describe above. The UK is not perfect, but “fairness” is heavily built into the system.

My advice, apply for your PR first. Second start by taking out a low cost private healthcare insurance. Make sure your EIHC is up to date. If you do not have an NI number get one before Wed. If the Home Office turn down your PR application because of CSI, begin a judicial review of the decision (get advice free from Citizens Advice Bureau), if all else fails contact a place called the local Ombudsmans office who also has powers to help people who fall between gaps in the rock and can order the Home Office to review its decisions. Finally if even that fails, then you just have to wait 5 years. But as all the arrows point to an early guarantee on EU citizens status in the Brexit negotiations I am sure things will be fixed anyway.

Still, to go back to my first paragraph you are still stuck with uncertainty. True. But that is life. It is the same with people who have a job, they think they are fixed in a position and can relax, and we all do, that is human nature. But of course anyone could be given a months notice to leave tomorrow. There is no certainty in life, its always like this as you will find even more so when your children get older and they start making their own decisions about their lives, often wrong.

If i write much on this thread it is because many issues raised on threads like this have an underlying agenda to suggest that Brexit is some sort of bad or inhuman process and the people who voted for it are responsible. It is an attempt to try and undermine an election. But they are twisting facts, either deliberately or in ignorance. OK they can do that but fear it brings to people like yourself as everyone starts screaming we are all screwed, its inhuman. All EU citizens in the UK, even without a negotiated special deal, have a number of guarantees and should not panic. Be careful of people who are making panic-noises for political reasons.

There is a difference between Residence and Permanent Residence. Residence card is for anyone who is a qualified person. Permanent Residence is for anyone being qualified continuously for 5 years. It would be good if this differentiation is highlighted in the article.

Anita, thanks for your comment. However, as far as I understand, one needs CSI either way – if you want to register as a ‘qualified person’ and are a student/self-sufficient for Residence Certificate or Permanent Residence.
Please correct if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, and you can register as a qualified student/self-sufficient without CSI, but still not qualify for Permanent Residency without CSI, then there is even more creative logic behind the whole regulation than I was ever giving it credit for..

Blighty is acting in a very cheeky way asking so called “unqualified” EU citizens to provide evidence of CSI in order to be granted PR. Yet, I struggle to understand how anyone, especially from A8 countries, with two functioning brain cells didn’t bother to apply for PR or UK citizenship prior to the Brexit vote, especially after spending 10 years or so in the country.
It has been obvious since the onset of 2008 financial crisis that public mood turned against Eastern European migrants and in the early 2010 we witnessed first forced deportations of Polish citizens who became unemployed and had to resort to sleeping rough. I didn’t hear outcry from Polish community in the UK at that time for a simple reason that those were unwashed, rough sleeping and voiceless few who were surely “lazy if they can’t get any job in the UK” and “we should be ashamed of those destroying the myth of hard working European migrants”.
However, once the same, hostile Home Office policies started being applied indiscriminately, even to successful” Russell Group graduates and researchers from Poland, it became a different matter.
It shocks me that those who migrated from other EU state to the UK rested their immigration status on the illusive idea of EU CITIZENSHIP. Anyone should’ve promptly realised that migrating from Slovakia to UK has nothing in common with migrating from Oregon to Florida in the US. Different language, job market, social, health and pension systems at least, made me realise that I moved to another country where no one ( with the exception of Erasmus students) identifies themselves primarily as European. Throw in the mix the rise of UKIP and other anti-immigrant nationalist organisations such as EDL or Britain First as well as viciously biased coverage of A2 migrants in largely right wing press in the UK, and all Europeans should have been finalising their PR and UK citizenship applications. Instead, they chose to wait and became bargaining chips stuck in a system which needs more than 100 years to process their paperwork…
Today as a dual citizen in the UK I still feel saddened by incoming collapse of the EU, but most of all, sorry for my European friends, several of whom were quick to ridicule me when I became British citizen. Now, they express their regrets for not attempting to formalise their right to live their lives in the country that has become their home and feel helpless watching corrupted politicians in semi-democratic Westminster playing unashamedly with their lives.

That is an extremely smug little rant. It adds nothing to the the very useful exchange of information in these comments. I know you’re not the only one, but as a recently-naturalized citizen, perhaps you could ask yourself why you came here to gloat at length over a situation you too could easily have faced.

Anyway, welcome to the UK. You’ll fit in just fine.

Stefen J
March 22, 2017 at 2:26 am

Could, would, might have….. But did not after all as he/she figured out that the EU offered only illusion of immigration status to its citizens, the same way it offered no economic prospects to the young Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese and Greeks.
The fact that anyone from the EU can be deported after 3 months if not obediently cycling with hot food for Deliveroo or packing your orders at Amazon warehouse is a joke that highlights incompetence of EU lawmakers in asserting rights of their citizens in other EU states.

I do not agree with all your analysis here but you make a refreshing contribution to this thread. It is amazing that people neglect to secure their position in an adopted country.

By the way, in the UK (as I note in other EU states), i find the A8, specially the Poles have a very high reputation for hard work and being good members of society. The only problem relates to Roma people who present a unique set of challenges to western countries (maybe because they were kicked around in history by their home states, specially under communism). I always feel sorry for Romanians who many of whom work exceptionally hard and do well in Britain getting blamed for integration issues with the Roma people – Roma and Romanian is not exactly the same thing.

Why do people always get led by the media. The newspapers are after profits and so always make the news sensational. People in Britain are more wise to this than I think any other country, maybe more so in France, so you need not worry we are all dumbos swallowing the tabloid newspapers sensations.

That you got ridiculed by your friends, I’m sorry. People should be able to choose to be naturalised if they want to without being bullied. That you are now in turn ridiculing people because they haven’t asked for PR or to be naturalised, I am also sorry. No one can predict the future, and equally no one can predict if the referendum final vote would have been different if the terms of the leavers’ campaign were better and more transparently articulated. That is a stain in politics history that is going to stay forever. So, you can’t really blame people’s vote on the financial crisis of 2008, when no one even dreamt of a referendum by then. Nor can you say that the idea of EU citizenship is illusive when there are petitions that have been heard by the European Parliament, which is a matter being taken seriously, and that hopefully will lead to a EU Passport. I live in the UK for 14 years, I studied, I worked, both as self-employed and full-time employee, and I am now studying again. I have never asked for Permanent Residence because I personally don’t want to have any more labels attached to my identity: labelling is a cause of segregation. I am not happy I might get kicked-out of the UK, but equally, I don’t think I should be criticised for not choosing to have asked for PR. The UK is in breech of the law when it doesn’t qualify the NHS as CSI, and that is a unlawful loophole, so really, is it the people’s fault to think they were protected, when they should have been all along, and now suddenly they are not? The EU project is about union, and union doesn’t mean assimilation or to be indistinguishable. That’s what is positive, yet extremely challenging about the EU. And in this case, the law is what unite(d) us, but our individual nationalities is what makes the EU a rich and powerful coalition. So no, not in a million years, I thought I would need a PR to stay here, and even though I personally don’t regret it because I am happy to be a nomad, I know that there are many people with families being torn apart that do regret it. So because of their suffering, maybe instead of scorn, a little empathy would carry a better weight on them.

You seem to be putting different administrative and legal concepts in the same bin –residency, PR, citizenship, “EU citizenship” (?).
Just because you live/work in a different EU country you should not need to obtain the citizenship of that country in order to safeguard your rights. I have lived/studied/worked in Italy for over 15 years and am married to an Italian citizen, and never in my dreams have I thought of applying for Italian citizenship. Obtaining a citizenship just to “secure” oneself is actually ethically not right, one acquires a citizenship because of a “special” link with the new country, if they feel the need for it.
It must be said though, that all of continental EU countries (and I have lived in a few) have very clear and simple rules on the documents an EU citizen must provide to obtain PR, even Italy, or the “new” acession countries such as Slovenia.
In Germany, for instance, if you are an EU citizen who wishes to live there, but have no income, you will be promptly and clearly informed about the health insurance requirements/options and directed to the specific office. If you are between jobs and have no health insurance at that time(for whatever reason), your old health insurance company will inform you “you currently have no health insurance, should you wish to be insured you need to pay….” now that is efficiency.
When I worked in the UK I honestly never understood (and I did try to find the information) who and how they paid into the NHS for me. Yes, I understand it is the employer, but I never received any sort of document stating – your NHS number is 12345 and your employer is paying your contributions. A thing which is standard practice across continental EU States.
And re. the “incoming collapse of the EU”, actually, Brexit is slowly but securely helping unite continental Europe, as they say in Italy “not all bad things bring harm”, many of the EU countries are trying to make it as easy as possible for UK citizens to obtain citizenship, and the talk of a “EU passport”, promoted by MEP Guy Verhofstadt is starting to gain momentum.

This is precisely we must start suing the British state for unlawful actions. People like you don’t get that it is the UK that said, against the EU law, that NHS access isn’t enough to satisfy the CSI requirement. This is what creates issues for non-British EU citizens. People aren’t stupid but when there is a moody lawmaking, we’re defenseless, unless we sue

Dina
July 23, 2017 at 10:58 am

No, it is not only UK!!! It is Ireland also!!! Here they ask for Private Medical Insurance, but you only find this out when you go apply for PR!!!! However, PM is not required under the Directive. And the CS requirement under the Directive does not attach the need for the declaration of financial self-sufficience. There is the word and separating the two conditions, which means they are separate requirements to have. State health insurance is a right, given under the Charter for Fundamental Rights, to which UK and Poland did not accede, so yes, they may well consider NHS or State health insurance as insufficient, because they are not bound by the CFR, which says that it is sufficient!!!!!!They problem lies, as many here on this post already said, in the fact that they did not inform people of this, and the fact that people are able to use it, makes the requirement for extra, private insurance superfluous, plus, in an of itself, purchasing extra insurance will only fill the coffers of some insurance company scammer buddy, but it wont save the NHS, because it is still open for EU citizens in the UK to use!

Anita, thanks for your comment. However, as far as I understand, one needs CSI either way – if you want to register as a ‘qualified person’ and are a student/self-sufficient for Residence Certificate or Permanent Residence.
Please correct if I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, and you can register as a qualified student/self-sufficient without CSI, but still not qualify for Permanent Residency without CSI, then there is even more creative logic behind the whole regulation than I was ever giving it credit for..

Good question, I know people on the forums have posted that if you get rejected for PR you now get sent the registration certificate instead (instead of previously often the letter stating to “prepare to leave”), but not sure what the reasons where for not getting PR. CSI would still be required, but not in retrospect I suppose, but then the registration certificate is superfluous really. I find the whole thing is not made easily understandable at all by the Home Office, I first filled out the registration cert application before I was told I need the PR, luckily I hadn’t sent it of yet…just by reading their website I wouldn’t have known there are different versions..

Also worth noting the CSI requirement stems from the 2004 Directive on EU citizenship and free movement but for a long time NHS was deemed sufficient. In 2011 the Coalition government started implementing it directly and made private CSI compulsory in UKBA (now Home Office) EEA regulations. See this notice:

This was not an act of parliament but administrative regulations, that is why there was little fuss about it. But since 2011 it has been highlighted by a number of immigration lawyers and rights activists… and ignored.

As said previously, the registration certificate is not the same as the permanent residence certificate, it is much easier to get and it’s no use for anything as far as I can see (definitely not for acquiring citizenship, which is the main reason EU citizens apply for PR for..).
The CSI issue is very odd imo, as what is the point having to have private health insurance while at the same time being entitled to NHS treatment? And if people were not, nobody knew about that, including nobody working for the NHS (I have never heard about some EU citizens requiring insurance, and I’ve worked for the NHS for 12 years..). It’s very well saying people should have informed themselves Karl, why, there was no need to while we were in the EU. And of course official places should have informed people of the requirement of CSI if it is a legal requirement to be legally here in some cases, e.g. when people registered with the NHS. Actually health insurance companies would have promoted this requirement if they’d known about it too, an waful lot of potential customers, not heard or seen a thing…!

Catch 22… My wife and I moved from the Netherlands to Scotland after our retirement. I am a Ditch national in the UK as a “self sufficient qualified person”. My wife is an American citizen and for her we applied for a temporary Resident Permit which was eventually (after submitting a dosier of 181 pages) granted after a wait of 6 months. Part of our respective applications included proof of having EHI Cards (in our case issued by the Netherlands where my wife was a resident previously). Being “legal” in the UK, we had to notify the Dutch authorities that we had moved abroad. Thereby our Health Care Insurance in the Netherlands ceased, meaning we don’t any longer have “CSI” and thus are in the UK illegally…

As both the EU Commission and the relevant British minister have said they intend to deal with the issue of EU citizens rights vis Brexit as the first subject to discuss under the Aritcle 50 negotiations then my advice would be to follow the news closely on this in the next couple of months as your dilemma might be solved quite soon.

Apart from anything else, your wife should be covered under the clauses of the ECHR regarding a right to a family life.

That said, because of the American angle, you should take a meeting with an immigration lawyer – plenty around all the mass immigration areas. But if i were you I’d wait to see what emerges in the next few months from the Article 50 negotiations before paying lawyers.

Thanks for the advice Mike Hall. That is why my wife was granted a temporary resideny permit. She also still had a valid EHIC. After “checking out” of the Netherlands however, our health care insurance which we were paying for in the NL stopped. So nothing is backing her EHI Card now, hence she does not carry valid CSI and therefore technically illegal in the UK. Insurance companies that sell private medical insurance to the elderly here have not even heard of CSI!

You might google it and ring around to find out.Years ago I got an offer from a bank in the Isle of Man for two hundred a months, sterling, worldwide coverage, but I was a lot younger then.It depends on your age, I dare say.

For people over the age of 65 it is very difficult to buy private medical insurance. You can buy private medical insurance to augment NHS care but nothing that is called Comprehensive Sickness Insurance. I and my wife are trying to get medical insurance through the Dutch CAK which is valid for “treaty countries”.

Oh what a wondrous web we weave…Politics, even in social, civil and commercial affairs, is war by other means.I note that some people put the blame with the EU, and rightly so.Through the mainstream media we have been told so much during the last thirty years and more.That is how most people find out how the system works, other than from hearsay, third parties not related and when dealing with the bureaucracy.As an aside, the EU has given enough for scholars and proper, that is, neutral, academics to analyse and write papers on for decades to come.Meanwhile, people who are exercised by the EU schemozzle need to get wiser about politics as it it played.On the continent the people have generally a different perspective on how bureaucracy works and how one gets through life generally.From experience, I would say that many continental Europeans don’t understand the British way of doing things.It is a class thing, which works on the continent just as well, but not as subtle.People on the continent are used to it, deal with it automatically or, mostly, are blind to it.
The principle that they in power always seek to dumb people down where they can and try to keep them innocent and ignorant as much as possible operates everywhere, however.Imo, the onus is on migrants to find out for themselves.That is especially tricky if you don’t know that you don’t know what you need to know to avail yourself of the same rights and on-a-par privileges as others you, often mistakenly, believe yourself to be on equal terms with as regards civil rights, or even human rights.Politics being what it is, people are spun all sorts of fairytales by politically active operatives.That is a lesson one has to learn .If one has switched-on parents who would give their off-spring a fair start in life, rather than keep them dumb and down for whatever reason, which happens a lot, or one has a mentor in life or a partner who is fair and supportive rather than exploitative and manipulative, one does not have to be overly clever, does not have to learn the hard way.
In the UK, the class system works right through the bureaucracy and in business, I gather, just the same.If you’re one of them, seemingly impossible ways and means become easy, hidden openings other never suspect are there briefly open up to let one through, etc.It was ever thus.The system is against the masses and working/lower class people because the system is designed and managed by the people who re-design and manage it every day to suit the incumbents, not to suit the also-rans in society.If people think that unfair, well…, ah maybe they ought to get clever and cooperate with others to change it.But lo, no sooner have people got clever and worked out how it works, then they join the clique which runs the show to work their way up and to leave the struggling straggling crowd behind, except if they are are of outstanding moral fibre, in which case they become charitable persons or hermits praying for humanity.Can people be helped?God/Good helps those who help themselves, and if you are caught helping yourself to what you are not entitled to it pays to be with the in-crowd.

One of the comments above said no EU27 country had so far guaranteed the residence rights of UK citizens living there, so it was “fair cheese” if the UK refused to guarantee the residence rights of EU27 citizens living in the UK.

This is not true. I remember several weeks ago a leading member of the Spanish government saying that he would have no problem guaranteeing the residence rights of UK citizens living there. Obviously negotiations have to confirm this, but it shows that a bit of give and take on both sides should ensure a reasonable agreement. Spain is particularly important as it is, as far as I know, one of the major destinations of UK citizens in the EU27.

No government minister has mentioned or suggested that the EEA citizens in the UK will be refused anything. Besides all EEA citizens have a fall back position as they are protected by the Vienna Convention on treaties (though it would involve going to court to have it enforced). A flurry of comments like the Spanish one you quote and from elsewhere across the continent in recent months, in addition to off the cuff remarks from British ministers suggests that the rights of EEA citizens and UK Citizens in the EEA will be guranteed amicably. Both the European Commission and the British Government have stated that they intend that matter to be settled as top priority in the negotiations as the first item on the agenda. So I forsee no problem in this area.

The only problem has been the disgraceful exploitation and fear mongering of an improbable “worst case scenario” by certain politcal, “Remain” advocates which has un-nerved some EEA citizens in the UK. Such protaganists should be ashamed of themselves for playing with peoples emotions just so they can vent their anger about the way the Brexit vote went by suggesting it was an “in-human” decision.

The UK Government has on more than one occasion raised the issue of people from EU member countries living and working here and has been told this subject cannot be discussed in isolation and must be discussed after article 50 has been submitted. So will people please stop trying to portray the UK Government as being unreasonable on this and other issues.

Why does the UK Government need to discuss this question with the EU? The UK is stripping people (who came here legally and in good faith) of their rights. The UK government has a clear moral obligation to unilaterally restore equivalent rights to all those affected and is being entirely unreasonable in refusing to do this.This remains the case no matter how unreasonably any EU countries decide to behave over their UK residents. Foreigners are human beings not bargaining counters.

Explain what rights they are, please.Are we going around in circles on this?This has been debated at length.If you go somewhere to live legally and in good faith, that does not mean there is no limit to the expectations you may wish to see fulfilled.The EU is not, yet, a prison.The UK are getting out of this club, haven’t you heard, or are you not commenting in good faith?

OK, so a requirement for CSI makes sense in countries whose health care system relies on private or social insurance. It does not make much sense for the UK with the tax-funded NHS.

If we were long-term members of the EU (which I hope we will be but it looks unlikely), then it would make sense to change the EU directive to reflect the UK’s position.

As far as I can see there is no benefit to the UK in EU citizens who have an entitlement to NHS healthcare having CSI. But if anyone can see one – do say.

On that basis a fair solution would be for the UK to deem an entitlement to free NHS healthcare to be equivalent to CSI. That would be an administrative decision. It could form part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.

If people agree with that, then perhaps campaigners would make that a subject of their campaign.

There’s no need to change the Directive. What is needed is that the UK starts implementing it fairly, just as it did before the coalition and subsequent governments. Until 2011 nobody asked for private CSI, the form was 11 pages long, and rejections of PR applications were relatively rare. Then, from 2011 onward, you see 30-44% rejection rate, CSI requirement put in place, the form going up to 85 pages etc.

I agree the form may at first look intimidating with 85 pages, but very few people have to fill out more than roughly half that number and probably a lot less. I found on reading the PR form to be written in clear, simple English – it is not difficult. In the worst case one can get someone who speaks better English to help one with the form, I imagine after 5 years in the UK one should have a good level of English or at least know someone who does.

I can not understand the recent fuss in media about the PR form being an “85 page form”. The tone around that was a mis-representation. No wonder some EU citizens in the UK are feeling beleagured (so the press reports).

EU citizens should have CSI to register for NHS as the NHS is not free it’s funded by UK taxpayers through NI contributions. It’s upto the individual to have the right knowledge and awareness of all the requirements before moving to the UK.

Dear Juliet, that was not the case for individuals that arrived in the country before 2011. I moved to the UK when I got married and back then all I needed for naturalisation (let alone permanent residency) was 3 years of marriage and two tests (living in the UK and language).
One checks the requirements on arrival but does not perpetually checks for updates unless they are made public.
Furthermore, the CSI requirements is infeasible for over 65s.

You’re wrong Juliet: just about the fifth of NHS funding comes from NI, which mainly goes towards social security (pensions and benefits). The rest comes from the central budget to which everyone, including migrants, contributes through income and consumption taxes, excise duties, and so on.

Note, not even having a EHIC, so costs when using the NHS can be billed to their home country, shows a disregard as to who will pay for one’s medical bills. An immigrant should not arrive with such a mindset. The ideal mindset for an immigrant is one of integration and co-operation, that would mean having regard to how society functions fairly, ie. how the health service is supported. It is a basically a left wing concept, one of social solidarity, but a concept that should appeal across the political spectrum for obvious reasons.

2011 is the key date here. It marks the closure of the Workers Registration Scheme and anticipation by Home Office of increased numbers of citizenship applications from East European migrants. As the large proportion of them was employed through agencies or in flexible employment, it meant they ended up with employment gaps while between jobs. Very few, if ANY, purchased private medical insurance. Therefore, CSI requirement has effectively robbed them of the ability to apply for a proof of residence/citizenship.

Also worth mentioning the terrible position of workers (often Romanians) working under agencies and getting less than the minimum wage and treated appaulingly. in the 2015 General Election only the Labour Party produced proposals in their manifesto to deal with this disgrace within the UK work force. Conservatives and Lib Dems had nothing to say on the matter!

Although I don’t know the legal technicalities of either case, I am reminded of the situation with workfare in the UK. (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Reilly)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Work_and_Pensions.) People on jobseeker’s allowance were sanctioned (i.e. had benefits withheld) for not participating in a workfare scheme. However, the courts found that ‘the work placement system was unlawful because Parliament had not given the DWP lawful authority to impose such schemes and because the people involved were not provided with sufficient information about it’ (quoting the Wikipedia entry). Parliament then retrospectively changed the law to avoid repaying the benefits that the government had unlawfully withheld. This seems itself to have been an illegal act under EU law, because it interfered with ongoing judicial proceedings — but this part of the case has yet to reach the highest courts.

Although the CSI requirement might turn out to be lawful, the underlying problems sound similar to be: culpably poor communication by government; a willingness to compromise people’s legal rights in order to pursue their political agendas; and being on the wrong side of European law in both cases.

I am not so certain on how lawful CSI is. It discriminates on the basis of nationality as non-EU nationals can contribute towards the NHS if they are self-sufficient a fraction of the sum of a Private Insurance Scheme.

About twenty years ago I considered living in the Uk.I went to apply for a NI number but was given a brush-off.Upon insisting I was told that six million numbers had been mis-allocated and I could only if I had my own business or a permanent job.When asking how long I had to be in a job to have it considered permanent I got no answer.It seems they were discriminating against other EU nationals.I was and still am a Dutch citizen.I had already sussed out that if I were an illegal migrant from Africa or Asia there would be ways and means to get a NI number and legalised residency.I left it at that.Life is too short to go pushing shit uphill or break the law and risk a criminal record.I can stay in the UK as long as I like.I pay my way.If they want me out I will go spend my hard-scrabble savings elsewhere-FINGER!

You seem to have an odd hostile attitude instead of a rational attitude.

EU law has developed via case law in the past 20 years.

From what I understand, if you come to the UK you can apply directly for an NI number at a job centre. You are titled a “job seeker” rather than a “worker” at first (there is a difference). You get no benefits for the first 3 months but you are then entitled to un-employment pay and hosuing benefit to pay rent (limitations on how much rent you can claim for). Then if you do not have a job after six months since arrival you could (not necessarily though) be asked to leave the UK. However if asked to leave, you can return and repeat the process if you show some sort of consistency in your arrangements here, like returning to the same address, as you then pass something called the “Habital Residency Test” -(though not everything about that is simple.) The only other aspect is that if you have savings over £6000 in the UK or overseas your benefit payments are reduced by a certain formula, and savings over £16,000 means you get no benefits.

Thank you for the reply.When given the run-around, I did indeed not stand upon my rights.And yes, I have by now a hostile attitude towards bureaucracy and political parties almost without exception in the countries that I have lived in.However, that is due to my perspective on the situation in the West, not this case in particular.I did not then think I should have to beg or unduly insist, as I believed myself to be entitled.
It is a philosophical position to take.Since I was refused, I was free to move on.If I feel unwelcome somewhere, that is what I do.It may depend on what you want this world to become or look like, Mike, but I would venture that if you knew what I reckon to know about politics in the so-called democratic West you would be hostile to.However, it’s a free world.What happens is due to what people collectively do and leave undone.
And really, I am quite relaxed about it, knowing where it goes.The EU, corporate globalisation, the ongoing destruction of the nation-state, if people allow it to go on as it does.People are blind mostly, imo.Keep blaming extremists, rather than the politicians fomenting hatred.What was Bliar doing supporting the US?The UK should have been right out of it.This is not off-topic, btw.If enough people put pressure on the political parties and the government-of-the-day to stop messing about in Muslim countries’ domestic issues, there is a better moral case to tackle the extremists.I think fair treatment should be the very basis of government.The current campaign to overturn Brexit, supported by EU migrants in the UK who are up in arms because the UK electorate made a fully justified democratic decision makes a nonsense of good and fair government.It is imo sabotage of democracy, civil rights and the right of refuge where people are clamouring for every economic illegal migrant from the third world to be let in.Anyway, just see what happens.

Mike Hall
March 23, 2017 at 11:02 pm

Hmmm, I think you mike prefer to write this on the many good political blogs in the UK, the leading one being politico. I doubt you will get much reply to your points here as many people on this thread are very worried about the immediate concern about their status within the UK.

My only advice to you is do not be deterred by bureacracy, often the staff are bland or difficult. I have learned never accept the first answer. If it gets difficult bring in an MP or local Councillor, then the case is taken over by a manager and that usual means you get what you are owed.

I couldn’t agree with you more about nation states. Even after Brexit the big question of democracy vis globalisation remains for the UK – some people are in for a shock. In fact I think the biggest question of our age is how do we keep democracy with globalisation, modern political correct culture and modern forms of technological economics.

This is exactly the type of difficulties that the UK gets into related to the decision by DHSS (then called) back in 1977 to change our benefits and health care system from a contributory based system (common on the continent still) to a needs based system. The change was brought about by Socialist Workers Party and others badgering a minority Labour Govt at the time to do this on behalf of newly arrived Bangladeshi immigrants so that they can receive the full panopoly of benefits on arrival, this cause supported by numerous left wing MPs who because of the Lab-Lab Govt slender majority needed their votes. Thus a back stairs deal was hatched.

None of this business about CSI would be inflamatory if we still had a contributory based system. Then the situation would be simple, you have to contribute to be entitled to support. As an immigrant in another European country for most of the past 15 years i know the score very well. In that so called “welfare leaning” Scandinavian country, if i hit skid row during my first year I would only have been entitled to an emergency payment for a max of 3 months. No housing benefit or housing costs covered. No support for dependents. Just enough money to buy Lidl type of shopping basket of basic food and that is it. Plus you have to pay to use the health system (comes out of your emergency payment if you fall ill), which begins with £15 to visit the doctor, £38 for a scan and so on. (A&E is not charged). In other words if you get to the point of needing emergency payments, which means no income, no job, no savings left: go back to your home country.

With set ups like that it astonishes me that any other EU citizen, based on the knowledge of how it works in their own country, would not take the precaution of checking out what health coverage they would get in the UK and what insurance they need to cover themselves in addition to get the EHIC as a standard. With no insurance, what on earth do they think would happen if they had a serious illness whilst in the UK? I must say i qualify my sympathy for such persons now stuck trying to apply for PR.

The self employment must be “genuine and effective” but there is no set number or hours or income level. Home Office guidance suggests two things: 1) “genuine and effective” means the opposite of “marginal and supplementary”: marginal = so little money that self-employment is irrelevant to lifestyle; supplementary = applicant “clearly” spends their time doing something else. 2) the HMRC primary earnings threshold is used as a guide in determining this: so long as you earn more than £481 per month (as of 2017), you will *generally* be accepted as self employed. See Home Office guidance “European Economic Area nationals: Qualified Persons”, pages 18 and 12.

@AHerbec Dear Aleksandra, thanks for your wonderful article! Regarding this: “Not surprisingly, CSI has been considered unlawful by some lawyers, and has been challenged in UK courts already, but with no success.” In our case, “with no success” is not true or accurate.

My self and my EU husband applied and we denied UK PR based upon requirement of not having CSI whilst students. We got free legal aid and appealed to the Asylum Court, where in 2009 the court ruled in our favor.

The Acts of the Asylum Court ruling on our behalf says that this requirement is unlawful under EU law, and that our entitlement to NHS coverage voids this illegal requirement. The Home Office was over-ruled and we received our UK PR cards in 2010.

I know of other couples in similar situations who have appealed and prevailed. This is in the court records, so it would be possible for a current couple or individual to appeal and reference our case and others in their defense. I doubt the Home Office would even challenge such appeals, since their lawyers know they have no legal footing here.

As annoying as this matter can be, it brought us enormous relief to take advice from a qualified UK immigration lawyer, who assured us we would not be denied PR and never deported. Our lawyer was 100% correct.

I’m afraid this is no longer accurate so anyone who’s. even given hope by this comment, be aware that the Court of Appeal had clearly settled that CSI is a lawful requirement under the Free Movement Directive: see Ahmad v Home Secretary [2014] EWCA Civ 988 – judgment available here:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/988.html

Appeals to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber will not succeed. DRW’s claim long preceded the Court of Appeal case.

I am literally in the same situation as @DRW and it feels good to know that actually there are some success cases on this. Frankly, I know at least 4 people that have aplied for a PR in same conditions as me with no CSI and they have received it by using the health insurance system they had access to in their home country( NOT EHIC but form E104). Interestingly, I have done the same application with the same documentation and mine was rejected. That being said, clearly there is a lot of discrimination on how they deal with these applications.

Since I lost all the confidence in ever getting this at this time, I was wondering if I can apply again once i reach the full 5 years of continuously working. It happens that I will get that in September 2018 and since the brexit will only finalise in March 2019 there should still be plenty of time to meet the criteria. Can I safely assume this is going to be the case?

It seems the Home Office is asking people not to apply for PR because of the backlog of applications. Who could have predicted? All the while EU citizens are turned down for jobs, mortgages, medical treatment etc. for lack of PR.

We have been living here the last 19 years and the first time we’be ever heard of the CSI was when Brexit became an issue. I am a stay-at-home mother, Hungarian-French dual national and my French husband is a researcher. If something were to happen to him I could be deported and certainly would not be able to apply for PR. I find the argument it is your responsibility to find the information a bit silly. How can you find something that you don’t know the existence of?

Having lived here the last 19 years I have nowhere else to go on my own with 4 kids. This is my home. My husband paid NI and when I intermittently worked I paid in, too. As it stands he can sponsor us, it causes me great anxiety to think what would happen if he would not be with us? The other issue is our now adult son. He has no CSI either. He was born in France and came here with us when he was 6 months old. He is still 19, thus under 21, my husband could sponsor him in theory but now it seems the Home Office cannot deal with applications, so we may run out of time. After reaching 21 he will have to apply on his own merit. Even if we take out CSI for him now he won’t have 5 years accrued. If we run out of time he won’t be able to legally stay in the UK and administratively survive. He doesn’t speak French because as a mixed language couple we speak English among ourselves, probably a good idea anyway from what I’ve heard from friends who try and speak their native language in public, and he’s never lived anywhere else in his life. My husband is trying to apply for jobs abroad now, the xenophobe rhetoric and the uncertainty is making us unsettled and we do not feel at home.

Thank you for this excellent article Aleksandra and thank to all the good people who help us battle through this red suffocating tape.

My theory is that originally the Home Office was simply being sloppy about the implementation of this requirement. Had they really cared about the extra burden that may have been put on the NHS or country’s finances by EU citizens they would have ensured that appropriate mechanisms were in place to enforce it. They clearly didn’t foresee what sort of numbers of visitors would arrive on British shores.

However, as time has passed and the political mood in the country has changed from welcoming to hostile the inept Home Office (led by the current PM for many years) that hasn’t managed to properly monitor and control the flow of migrants is now grappling for whatever tool they can to show off their hard stance and how good job they are doing at tackling migration.

As for the universities they were probably as unaware of the requirement for having CSI by their EU students as the students themselves. I personally have no recollection whatsoever of coming across this subject when I was a student. Universities could’ve been a great check point for this, no CSI no study, simple, one group of migrants sorted.

This CSI nuisance is just another nugget of political BS that won’t make any difference overall only makes our life difficult. Unfortunately we and our families have been cast monkeys in this political circus.

So much self-entitled whining in this article. We are talking about university students who can be expected to do a little bit of research for themselves. The CSI requirement has been easily discoverable on the UKBA (now UKVI) website and guidance notes. Free movement rights have never been absolute and where a person is not economically active in the host state, they can quite legitimately be expected to reduce their burden on the social assistance system by having an EHIC or CSI. Many years ago I came to the UK as a student with the intent to settle, checked the requirements, bought a £6 a month CSI with a £1,500 excess which was accepted without problems, and naturalised as a citizen. Stop blaming the government or your universities and start realising that not everything in life needs to be spoonfed to you.

Government responded
The rights of EEA and Swiss citizens in the UK remain unchanged. The Government wants to protect their status, subject to reciprocal protection for British citizens living in other EU countries.

Read the response in full
Until the UK leaves the EU, EU citizens continue to enjoy their EU law rights to travel to, and live in, the UK.
The right of permanent residence, and the requirements that need to be met to acquire it, originate from Directive 2004/38/EC (often referred to as “the Free Movement Directive”). This EU Directive sets the conditions for the acquisition of permanent residence and it applies in all EU Member States. The Directive is currently implemented in the UK through the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Applications for documentation that confirms permanent residence status are refused where the requirements set out in the Directive and Regulations are not met.
The Prime Minister has been clear the Government wants to guarantee the status of EU nationals in the UK as early as we can. We have told other EU leaders that we can offer EU nationals here this certainty, as long as this is reciprocated for British citizens in other EU countries.
Home Office

Ok. But if we check the Directive, there is not specified that students need CSI. “Easy right to stay longer if the EU citizen is working, is a student, OR has medical insurance and is self sufficient”.

“What is covered?

No-cost, easy, fast issue of visas
Easy right to stay for up to 90 days if so desired. EU citizens and their non-EU family can work if desired in this period, or play.
Easy right to stay longer if the EU citizen is working, is a student, or has medical insurance and is self sufficient
Permanent residence after 5 years
Right of facilitated entry if passports have been lost, or if a visa has not been obtained
Applications can only be turned down in three limited circumstances (public health, public policy, national security), or when a marriage is determined to be fraudulent. Reasons for refusal must be spelled out in detail and there is a right of appeal.
EU citizens and their non-EU family members can not legally be treated differently than citizens of their EU host country
What 2004/38/EC means

Hi very helpfull article.
Can anyone see a logic of getting csi as an eu national and as a non Eu national just to pay 200 pound per year health charge to the nhs?most of csi doesnt cover any health issues prior to insurance cover date like diabetic, heart problem, any repeat prescriptions these are excluded if you read small prints so in these situation where eu national would go yea tyats right bqck to square one nhs.
I wonder i. 2012 when eu commission notified uk govt for breaching the movement right in thier report why they didnt chase them as described in notfication in a report. I think we eu national will suffer in the brexit overhual.

Hi! I have a CSI and had received my Residence Card. Does anyone know if I could face any problem if I use NHS instead of my Private Health Insurance? My GP always refer me to use NHS and when I talk about my private health insurance, he is not aware of that. I cannot find any information about that online too and I do not know when I should use NHS and when to use my private medical insurance. Tks in advance.

Surprisingly enough, in the last version of the guidance notes (version 3.0 from April 2017 – published after this article) it is established that: “Comprehensive sickness insurance (students and self-sufficient persons): one of the following documents which was valid for the relevant period of study / self-sufficiency: European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) (formerly form E111) issued by an EEA Member State (not the UK)”

It is the first time in the guidance notes history where explicit information about the EHIC as an acceptable document is provided.

After over 4 months of correspondence with UKVI and wait to have my PR accepted I’ve just got refusals on the grounds of lack of CSI (even having suggested using an EHIC before), so needless to say I’m appealing it referring to V3.0 (just hope the officer in charge takes the time to read the notes – as I have – instead of systematically dismissing my case).

Any ideas on the position of an EU national married to a UK citizen, who has been employed by a UK company, paid NICs, now retired on a UK State pension, no CSI. Didn’t apply for British citizenship on grounds of cost and no particular perceived need at the time.

I’m so scared and devastated, i came to uk in 2006 as student, and I meet and I had married to Hungaryian girl, from 2008 we were working full time, and then she was thinking to start study in Manchester uni so she have to stop working, as full time studying, and I have been working for almost 11 years as full time paying all my taxes and bills and now I’m facing trouble regarding she hasn’t got the sickness health insurance from covering her from 2011 to 2013 I got divorced with her I’m facing refuse cases,my right to work and leave to remain in uk and everything things I had been building because of this gaps of not being able to find health insurance coverage her time during this time and the worst of it regarding article 50, I also had two articles facing my case which is article 15 and article 2 because apparently my own country is not safe anymore for anyone going there and so dangerous to go back right now therefore what’s I supposed to do at this point losing my right or going to hell because my ex wife she hasn’t got the sickness health insurance which they’ve been asking for. are they going to sending me to death! because of this, and also she had none that asked her for it, she had EHIC and the NHS but the Home office they haven’t exactly excepted it , she applied for the NHS and they said yes to her and you are 100% entitled for it because of her low income so she got it and now I am facing those problem because of this mess article50. please help me if anyone has clue what exactly to do, I’m feeling so down and useless no idea what exactly to do ?!

Up to 10 yrs ago I lived & workedin UK. Was there for 35 yrs. if I want to go back I will pay health insurance in NL which in turn will cover all costs to NHS. I have a UK pension and am self sufficient.
Is that enough or not?
After Brexit I expect that it will not work.